Noisy EM5 Files

I find that I don't like to use my Oly EM5s at ISOs of more than 800 because I find the noise objectionable. Others do not seem to have this problem, even shooting at ISOs of 3200 and 6400. Am I more picky than others, or are there ways to reduce the noise without sacrificing image detail?

A sample would certainly help, but it's probably just your standards. I have comfortably shot iso 6400 on m43, you just have to realize that it isn't going to look as pretty. Also, if you're shooting very dark or underexposed scenes then noise becomes more apparent.

What software are you using to post -process your images? I am starting to find the E-M5 and E-M1 to be more acceptable at 1600 and 3200. By 1600, images from my D300 were not pretty, especially in poor light. I have not compared side-by-side in detail, but I am happier shooting the Olys at higher ISOs.

Raw files by nature have noise even at base ISO. I find that ISO 1600 is good on my EM-5 much better than my old D90 Nikon. With Topaz de noise I can retain most of the detail and clean the file from the Oly files. Even ISO 3200 look good after the Topaz plugin. Lightroom 5 will clean a ISO 1600 file without much detail loss. The most important aspect however is to nail exposure at high ISO.

ISO high limits is a pretty subjective thing. On my old FF, 1600 I'm usually good with, 3200 is a bit iffy, but really it all depends on the exposure. The old 12mp 4/3 sensor, nothing over 1200 iso, even 1000 could be a bit of an eyesore. The newer 16mp ones- I usually go up to 6400, though 3200 gives me acceptable results from most situations. I also use Lightroom 5 for editing. ..that FF DSLR doesn't get much use now a days.

Also try to expose to the right if you find yourself brightening shadows frequently from you RAW files. By default the EM5 meters slightly dark exposures; if you set exposure compensation to +1/3 to +2/3 EV when shooting to the effect that you don't have to push shadows in post, you can get less noisy pictures, sometimes dramatically so, with little downside.

Also try to expose to the right if you find yourself brightening shadows frequently from you RAW files. By default the EM5 meters slightly dark exposures; if you set exposure compensation to +1/3 to +2/3 EV when shooting to the effect that you don't have to push shadows in post, you can get less noisy pictures, sometimes dramatically so, with little downside.

Click to expand...

Except that exposing to the right has the same practical effect as reducing the ISO

I find that I don't like to use my Oly EM5s at ISOs of more than 800 because I find the noise objectionable. Others do not seem to have this problem, even shooting at ISOs of 3200 and 6400. Am I more picky than others, or are there ways to reduce the noise without sacrificing image detail?

Click to expand...

Who cares if you are being more picky than other people. At the end of the day - YOU need to be happy with what you are producing.

I, personally, don't mind the hi ISO noise, but that is because the type and style of photography I do lends itself to raw, gritty, grainy B&W end product.

Things that can help reduce noise:
1) Nail that exposure whenever possible
2) reduce the amount of post processing on JPG files, and if you want to do a lot of post - shoot RAW. It will give you more latitude for correction and noise reduction.
3) get a good noise reduction plug in. For basic things, Lightroom or PS CC are decent, but not great. I personally bought and use Topaz DeNoise, others like NoiseNinja. Most of the best plugin makers will give you a free 30 day full function trial. Investigate which ones work best for you and provide the best processing options.
4) (obviously) avoid using hi ISO - invest in a monopod/tripod or use speedlights if needed.

I find that I don't like to use my Oly EM5s at ISOs of more than 800 because I find the noise objectionable. Others do not seem to have this problem, even shooting at ISOs of 3200 and 6400. Am I more picky than others, ...

Click to expand...

I tend to notice the noise at ISO 6400 (Mine's an e-pM2, same sensor) which tells me I'm absolutely easygoing in that department.
There's nothing wrong with disliking the noise at 1600 if you really see it,
or maybe there is quality variation from camera to camera and you got a noisy one?
(Just an idea)
If there is noise which I want to smooth out I stick it in PhotoNinja, but most of the time I'm fine with it, especially if the thing's going to be printed 10x8 or some such : the noise disappears like magic in the prints.
I always have NF switched off, I don't like the current Olympus noise filter even at low.

I get good files up to 6400, to the point where I consider digital grain adds texture and does not detract from detail and the image quality. When it starts to detract from the image quality then IMHO it becomes noise.
I don't think I've particularly low standards either saying that. Though I should mention that I have come from film, so I actually find overly clean files to look sterile and unattractive. I feel many people today obsess with noise when the reality is digital 'noise' of yesteryear (with it's banding in the shadows ) has become a thing of the past. Todays grain at higher ISO's is much finer and random in nature - dare I say it - much more film like.. I actually add grain in for most of my digital workflow in post with the EM1.
If I absolutely must nuke all semblance of grain, I use DXO Prime noise reduction technology. This is amazing, but the default Olympus settings are far too aggressive. If you go the DXO route I suggest that you half the default value of '40' and goto a luminence noise value of about 20-25 for ISO6400 images. You will only see the benefit in the actual output file or the small sample window above the slider, so don't base your opinion on the main view window

The monochrom with it's much much cleaner files do not look as subjectively attractive to me as the M2 with Ilford HP5+ film. A modern OMD will produce files that are much cleaner again than this at a much higher ISO.
It could just be that you just don't like the 'look' that this format provides. If that's the case, no harm, maybe it's time to jump ship to a small format digital like a 5d mkiii , 6d, d800 etc... that gives you what YOU want. It's your hard earned money, you don't have to justify it to anybody

Except that exposing to the right has the same practical effect as reducing the ISO

Click to expand...

It depends. Unless you're shooting at such high ISO that the camera would start applying digital gain to an image in order to ETTR, with modern sensors achieving an optimal light saturation is more important than lowering ISO for noise reduction, because the difference in noise between low ISO and high is so low. See here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3453568

Settings for jpg,
Super fine setting
Noise filter OFF
Contrast -1
Sharpness -2
There may be a little luminence noise higher than 2500 but will not bother printing, I find
That the raw files have much too much chroma noise to clean up and not worth the added
Trouble, the jpg in camera conversion takes care of it .
These settings in reasonable light are excellent to 3200

You're not picky. According to DXO 826ISO is the "magic" number for the E-M5 from where SNR, and DR drop under "acceptable" levels (30dB, and 10stops) for large prints. I've been shooting the E-M5 for over a year now, and found 800 to be the ceiling for good IQ (i.e. DR, detail, SNR, colour depth). The E-M5 ships with a factory set limit of 400. Go figure. My X100s came with a default limit of 800, although the X-Trans sensor is said to be practically noise free up to 6400. All ****** (fan boy) talk. Those companies know better what their hardware is capable of.

That's not entirely true either. That overall score is logarithmic and 5 points on their scale equates to about a third of a stop. So differences in IQ are not as great as DXO would have you believe.
The scores are also measured before image processing by TruePic7/DigicV/whatever-new-fangled-name-you-want processor has demosaiiced the output. So it's value is only really in terms of what the sensor alone contributes to IQ in the entire equation of sensor + image processor + lens. http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Sensor-Score-Essentials

As for the sports ISO score corresponding to low light shooting - again this is logarithmic so differences are not as pronounced as scores would make you think.
Also were we to take that score as gospel in terms of 'noise' etc... medium format cameras aren't doing too good either according to that.http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Leic...s-Phase-One-IQ180-Digital-Back-vs-Pentax-645D
My point is , sure DXO scores are a nice base indicator of how something technically performs in one facet of the equation that gives you image quality. But in real world use, this does not necessarily translate into what will give you the best subjective image quality as the scores for the low light/sports iso medium formats illustrate. Take those scores for what they are - a machine in a lab. Real world results tell a different story for both the EM5 and the medium formats listed above.

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.